Donald Trump is constitutionally unfit to be President
of the United States. The Twenty-Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States requires the Vice President
to assume the presidency whenever “the President is unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office.” The
Twenty-Fifth Amendment does not condition the temporary or permanent removal of
the president on the president being “physically” or “medically” unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his or her office.
Rather, the Vice-President is to assume the powers of the presidency
when, for any reason, "the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office.” A president who
is a congenital liar and a bigot, under the explicit words of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his or her office.

The last paragraph of Section 4 supports claims that
the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is not limited to physical or medical
conditions. That paragraph authorizes
Congress to resolve, by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, whether a president is
able to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency. Members of Congress as a whole have no
particular expertise on physical, medical, or psychiatric conditions. That is for medical professions, who are
given no role in the constitutional process for removing the president. Members of Congress do have expertise on
whether a president, for any reason, is capable of discharging his or her
responsibilities. Thus, given that
Congress cannot determine whether a president is a sociopath, but can determine
whether the president is a congenital liar, the best reading of the
Twenty-Fifth Amendment is that Congress should focus on whether the president
is able to discharge the powers and duties of office and not on whether the
reason for that failure is some physical or medical problem.

The contrary position has absurd consequences. Consider a president who goes on a permanent
vacation and refuses to discharge any of the powers and duties of the
office. For political purposes, no
difference exists between that president and the brain-dead president. If we limit the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to
presidents with physical or medical conditions, however, we can only remove the
brain-dead president. Consider a
president who lies repeatedly, consistently utters bigoted remarks and makes
irrational decisions. If we limit the
Twenty-Fifth Amendment to presidents with physical or mental conditions, we can
remove that president only if we discover that the behavior is question is
caused by a brain deformity or by depression caused by the death of a loved
one. For constitutional purposes, no
difference exists between the congenital liar suffering from brain lesions, the
congenital liar suffering from depression and the congenital liar who is just a
rotten human being.

Donald Trump plainly meets the standards for removal
from office under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
A congenital liar cannot discharge the powers or duties of office. As Heidi Kitrosser points out in an important book, the constitutional separation of powers requires the public
have the information necessary to hold government officials accountable. A president who averages several major lies a
day, and who cannot tell the truth about matters ranging from attendance at the
inauguration to the facts underlying his tax and immigration policies cannot
perform the duties of office necessary for constitutional accountability. A bigot cannot discharge the powers or duties
of office. The Fifth Amendment by case
law and Fourteenth Amendment explicitly mandate that neither the United States
nor any state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.” A president committed to white supremacy is unable to
implement congressional legislation promoting this commitment to equality under
law or appoint justices and other officials who will act consistently with the
constitutional commitment to equality.

That Donald Trump is constitutionally unfit for office
is as much a matter for constitutional politics as constitutional law. No politically sane person expects that
Republicans in Congress will take seriously their constitutional obligation to
determine whether Donald Trump has the capacity to discharge his presidential
responsibilities as long as they believe Trump will sign tax cuts for their
donors and appoint reactionary justices to the federal bench. Nevertheless, whether removal is politically
possible at present or politically desirable should Democrats gain control of
Congress is a separate issue from the more fundamental question whether the
current occupant of the White House is capable of holding office. On that question, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment
is clear. A president unfit for office
is not entitled to deference or respect, even if for transient political
reasons that president is not removed from office.